Tavarez-Vargas v. Lawnbright LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tavarez-Vargas v. Lawnbright LLC, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice, but the settlement did not bind absent putative class members.
The dismissal and settlement affected Carmen Tavarez-Vargas and Lawnbright LLC. The order stated that absent putative class members were not bound by the dismissal or settlement.
What happened
In Tavarez-Vargas v. Lawnbright LLC, the parties told Judge Valerie Caproni that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. It also removed the language referring to a proposed class from the case caption.
Judge Valerie Caproni explained that, because the parties had not indicated they would follow the required class-settlement procedure, the dismissal and settlement applied only between Carmen Tavarez-Vargas and Lawnbright LLC and did not bind absent putative class members. The parties could ask to reopen the case within 30 days for good cause and could request that the court retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a separate request.
The detailed version
- Tavarez-Vargas v. Lawnbright LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00263
- Valerie Caproni
- May 6, 2022
Background
Carmen Tavarez-Vargas sued Lawnbright LLC individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.
Court’s order
Judge Valerie Caproni canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties could apply to reopen the case within 30 days, but the application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—the authority to enforce the settlement—they had to submit the settlement agreement and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Effect on the proposed class
The court directed the Clerk to remove the words “individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated” from the caption. Because the parties had not told the court that they intended to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), which governs certain class settlements and dismissals, the dismissal and any settlement operated only between Tavarez-Vargas and Lawnbright LLC. They did not bind absent putative class members.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.